The case for resistance

Why Larry Summers is right, but I still disagree with his conclusions

Everyone in higher education is concerned about the deal that Columbia University made with the Trump administration.

Yesterday, I spoke with The Conversation’s education editor about the deal, and our conversation yielded this part “explainer,” part “take” write-up.

Today, The Chronicle ran an interview with Larry Summers about the deal that I found compelling. Summers is a Bluesky villain, and I did a thread about his interview there, but my anxiety is high, so I also felt the compulsion to write up the ideas here.

Summers makes a compelling argument for why Columiba’s deal should set a precedent for other universities, especially Harvard, where Summers was once President. Before I get to the part of Summers’ argument that I find powerful, let me offer the easy but potent critique. I think he’s wrong on the potential consequences of the deal, which Summers minimizes. He’s the sort of elite - like tech bosses, media magnates, and big law firm partners - who seduces themselves into thinking you can make a deal that essentially protects your position and move on. That kind of thinking assumes that if you can give something visible but not that important, and maybe something you want to give anyway. In the interview, Summers indicates that he partly agrees with some of the Trump administration’s goals. You make a splashy payment, which Trump loves, and move on. Trump can declare victory, but you have let him win the press conference in exchange for settling the war on your terms. That’s the thinking. And the flaw is obvious because it assumes that Trump and his administration are both acting in good faith and are not especially serious about what they are doing beyond the PR aspects. None of the past six months supports that way of thinking.

It’s another part of Summers’ argument that I find compelling, and one that partly undercuts his suggestion that the deal is good. He’s more persuasive on the idea that a deal is necessary. Let me show you.

If it were feasible to file an appeal and three months later have the problems all go away because of a court order, that might be an attractive strategy. But I would be very surprised if, given the range of tools that were available to the government, given the climate of the current judiciary, that is a feasible strategy. The ultimate mission of a university has to be education and carrying out research, and those objectives are best served by being prepared to explore whether a negotiated agreement is possible.

He’s right. The federal government is so powerful, it has so many levers, and universities are so entangled with it, that it’s nearly impossible to win if the administration steering the government is determined to take you down. I don’t think anyone who understands the situation can argue with what Summers says in the above quote, except perhaps the final clause of the last sentence. Resistance is likely to be protracted, painful, and in the end, the resister is likely to lose more than they win. If, as a university president and board, you see your obligation to protect the institution’s ability to deliver on its mission by keeping operations going, then dealing can make sense even if you are not seduced into thinking that you’ve cut a deal with a reasonable party who will uphold their end of the bargain honorably.

Deal or no deal, the truth is there’s very little winning to be had for higher education. Once Trump had consolidated power across all three branches of government and was reelected with key members of his team committed to either destroying higher ed or remaking it in its image, the sector had lost.

So why do I prefer the resistance option? Universities should resist, and that can mean a lot of things, but I mostly mean they should avoid entering into deals with the administration, not because it will protect them or that they will win. No. Universities should resist to the greatest extent possible so that they remember how to be independent. I admit that resistance could violate traditional understandings of fiduciary responsibility and good governance. It likely will result in tangible harm (most of which is happening anyway). But once we start to concede on direct rule by the federal government, the government, no matter who leads it, will be very reluctant to give up that power. And we in higher ed will be unpracticed at governing ourselves. And the independence of US higher education will be over.

Eventually, MAGA’s grip on power will fade. I don’t know when or how that will happen. Public opinion, including about higher ed, is turning. My view is that we serve the future of higher education best by trying to keep ourselves in a position to make the most of the next political opportunity when it arises. To do that, we need to preserve as much of our independence as possible, even if that means enduring painful material damage.

Ok, enough.